Another unique investigation by The New York Times gets A1 play in this Sunday's edition (1 Oct. 2006) under the hed “Campaign Cash Mirrors a High Court's Rulings.” Adam Liptak and Janet Roberts (who probably did the heavy lifting on the data analysis) took a long-term look at who contributed to the campaigns of Ohio's Supreme Court justices. It ain't a pretty picture if one believes the justices should be above lining their own pockets,whether it's a campaign fund or otherwise. 
In any event,there seems to be a clear correlation between contributions —and the sources —and the outcome to too many cases. A sidebar,“Case Studies:West Virginia and Illinois,”would suggest there is much to be harvested by reporters in other states.
There is,thankfully,a fine description of how the data for the study was collected and analyzed. See “How Information Was Collected“
There are two accompanying infographics,one (“Ruling on Contributors'Cases”) 
is much more informative than the other (“While the Case Is Being Heard,Money Rolls In”),which is a good,but confusing,attempt to illustrate difficult concepts and relationships.
At the end of the day,though,we are grateful for the investigation,data crunching and stories.